I saw that and was going to post it when I had a chance. Not to start the same argument again, but to find out what people thought would be a good new name when the inevitable happens.

I like names that are reflective of the region, and that's why I'm apparently one of the few that likes the New Orleans Pelicans. For that reason, I think maybe the Cleveland Orange Traffic Cones would be the most appropriate but it really doesn't roll off the tongue.

I guess the leader in my clubhouse would be Cleveland Shoremen. A lot of that has to do with my affinity for names that don't end in 's'.

If the majority of Native Americans don't give a shit about nicknames that are perceived to be offensive, then why do they need to change the name?

From the link in Neyer's article:

Indeed, a recent SI poll suggests that although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently. Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols.

People just need something to plant their flag in and whine about. If your quality of life is somehow hindered by the Cleveland INDIANS, Washington REDSKINS, or Chicago BLACKHAWKS, maybe the problem is not them, it's you.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

If the name had to change (and I really dont care either way) Why not just do it old school European Football style and call it the "Cleveland Baseball Club" and call them "Cleveland BC" for short. Why do you need a team name in the first place?

"I don't think they're building chemical weapons in Berea. But they might be. I can't say for sure."Chuck Klosterman

skatingtripods wrote:If the majority of Native Americans don't give a shit about nicknames that are perceived to be offensive, then why do they need to change the name?

From the link in Neyer's article:

Indeed, a recent SI poll suggests that although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently. Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols.

People just need something to plant their flag in and whine about. If your quality of life is somehow hindered by the Cleveland INDIANS, Washington REDSKINS, or Chicago BLACKHAWKS, maybe the problem is not them, it's you.

STP: I agree with your take. Anyway, each one of us is a native American (laughed out loud when someone called a guy from Ethiopia an ‘African American’). So many real problems out there, like the hundreds of African American kids that get killed in Chicago every year. But writers prioritize making us change, on others’ behalf, because of affronts to writers' feelings.

MO: Agree that it is inevitable. And ha aren’t orange barrels already the state bush of Ohio? I like the Shoremen.

BAC (blood alcohol content?): I could get used to The Cleveland Tribe. Just keep Chief Wahoo (joke).

GOV: Jim Thoman (I think it’s his name. Cleveland historian.) one spoke about touring the old stadium just before it was torn down. Said it was shockingly overrun by spiders. Spiders and webs were everywhere.

Ah, Neyer... Nice usage of the dismissive "but those are different", and "near as I can tell". Honestly, journalistic laziness normally doesn't bother me as much as it does some people. Except when a self-righteous journalist wants to tell me what to do.

motherscratcher wrote:What happens when they eventually do change it? I mean, you not wanting them to chance nor thinking that they need to isn't going to stop it from happening.

Then it happens and there's nothing I can do about it.

Why are you encouraging me to waste time thinking about this? When's the last time the Cleveland Indians issued a statement on changing the name? They've already eliminated Chief Wahoo as much as they can, using the script I and the block C in its place.

It's a mediocre article attempting to get hits on a somewhat touchy and sensitive subject to some people.

I've said everything I've needed to say about my thoughts on it. The majority of Native Americans, the people who SHOULD be upset about it, not a bunch of hipster liberal white people, don't seem offended or too concerned about it.

Why should I be?

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

skatingtripods wrote:If the majority of Native Americans don't give a shit about nicknames that are perceived to be offensive, then why do they need to change the name?

From the link in Neyer's article:

Indeed, a recent SI poll suggests that although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently. Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols.

People just need something to plant their flag in and whine about. If your quality of life is somehow hindered by the Cleveland INDIANS, Washington REDSKINS, or Chicago BLACKHAWKS, maybe the problem is not them, it's you.

It's always funny when white people get offended on behalf of others who may or may not actually be offended.

BTW, love Rob's take that "The Fighting Irish" are "different". No negative streotypes there....

It is different. That name was created by those of Irish descent to describe themselves. The Indians' name was chosen because white people, at that time, thought of Native Americans as subhuman savages, "on the warpath all the time, and eager for scalps to dangle at their belts". Surely you can see the difference.

Regardless of whether or not some polled Native Americans have the time to be offended by the name and logo, they were pretty clearly chosen with a highly racist sentiment. Why isn't it better to move away from that? If a historically inaccurate name and cartoon was used to represent any other minority, they would have been dropped long ago.

BTW, love Rob's take that "The Fighting Irish" are "different". No negative streotypes there....

It is different. That name was created by those of Irish descent to describe themselves. The Indians' name was chosen because white people, at that time, thought of Native Americans as subhuman savages, "on the warpath all the time, and eager for scalps to dangle at their belts". Surely you can see the difference.

LOL, they were called Indians because Columbus initially thought he was in the Indian Ocean. Nobody is suggesting we rename the West Indies.

The term Indian rarely....ahem.....ruffles feathers, it's Chief Wahoo.

Many prefer the term American Indian over Native American. (My kids great grandmother was full blooded Cherokee).

"Rockers" was always one I thought could be a possibility, but thanks to the failed WNBA franchise, I couldn't see it being resurrected again anytime in the future. Plus, it's pretty wimpy, which is the problem with pretty much any alternatives. Something that reflects the "Indian" heritage without actually being called Indians might be a good bet, but what would that be? Warriors?

BTW, love Rob's take that "The Fighting Irish" are "different". No negative streotypes there....

It is different. That name was created by those of Irish descent to describe themselves. The Indians' name was chosen because white people, at that time, thought of Native Americans as subhuman savages, "on the warpath all the time, and eager for scalps to dangle at their belts". Surely you can see the difference.

Ahh... so if a group put together by Snoop Dogg ( or Snoop Lion, or whatever it is today) puts together a group of of young (ish), hip (ish) black males with tons of cake and calls his team the the LA Crazy Ass- Filthy Rich Niggaz then we're good? No one will be (or should be) offended?

It's one way or the other. If there's room for a representative percentage to take offense then it has to go. Or you stay with not giving a shit if anyone's offended. I really don't give a shit one way or the other. Believe it or not, when I watch a game with RG3 playing I don't associate it with native Americans being wiped off the face off the country. When I watch Notre Dame play the only drunken Irishman I worry about is me. If I watched Snoop's team play I wouldn't associate that name with any given individual or group of people. And when I watch the Cavs play I'm not immediately considering how Dartanian would feel about the logo and nickname.

I just wish this subject and every dumb ass, reactionary article associated with them would go away forever so I didn't have to be subjected to the same tired, played out, cliche'd bullshit arguments that resolve nada.

BTW, love Rob's take that "The Fighting Irish" are "different". No negative streotypes there....

It is different. That name was created by those of Irish descent to describe themselves. The Indians' name was chosen because white people, at that time, thought of Native Americans as subhuman savages, "on the warpath all the time, and eager for scalps to dangle at their belts". Surely you can see the difference.

LOL, they were called Indians because Columbus initially thought he was in the Indian Ocean. Nobody is suggesting we rename the West Indies.

The term Indian rarely....ahem.....ruffles feathers, it's Chief Wahoo.

Many prefer the term American Indian over Native American. (My kids great grandmother was full blooded Cherokee).

And you all realize that Neyer wasn't just dredging shit up out of the blue here. He's pretty clear that he's reacting to a recent article that stemmed from the symposium held last week on the topic. He's, you know, a blogger. Bloggers gotta blog. That's what they do.

Anyway, he was just throwing out a list of possible alternatives if/when, you know...an alternative is needed. And it will no matter what all personal feelings are.

Personally, I liked the list. I'd never heard of half the teams on there before.

BTW, love Rob's take that "The Fighting Irish" are "different". No negative streotypes there....

It is different. That name was created by those of Irish descent to describe themselves. The Indians' name was chosen because white people, at that time, thought of Native Americans as subhuman savages, "on the warpath all the time, and eager for scalps to dangle at their belts". Surely you can see the difference.

LOL, they were called Indians because Columbus initially thought he was in the Indian Ocean. Nobody is suggesting we rename the West Indies.

The term Indian rarely....ahem.....ruffles feathers, it's Chief Wahoo.

Many prefer the term American Indian over Native American. (My kids great grandmother was full blooded Cherokee).

Way to miss that point completely

A bogus argument does not make a valid point.

The Indians' name was chosen because white people, at that time, thought of Native Americans as subhuman savages, "on the warpath all the time, and eager for scalps to dangle at their belts". Surely you can see the difference.

There is simply nothing valid to this statement. If there is a point to be made, make it factually.

peeker643 wrote:Ahh... so if a group put together by Snoop Dogg ( or Snoop Lion, or whatever it is today) puts together a group of of young (ish), hip (ish) black males with tons of cake and calls his team the the LA Crazy Ass- Filthy Rich Niggaz then we're good? No one will be (or should be) offended?

It's one way or the other. If there's room for a representative percentage to take offense then it has to go. Or you stay with not giving a shit if anyone's offended. I really don't give a shit one way or the other. Believe it or not, when I watch a game with RG3 playing I don't associate it with native Americans being wiped off the face off the country. When I watch Notre Dame play the only drunken Irishman I worry about is me. If I watched Snoop's team play I wouldn't associate that name with any given individual or group of people. And when I watch the Cavs play I'm not immediately considering how Dartanian would feel about the logo and nickname.

I just wish this subject and every dumb ass, reactionary article associated with them would go away forever so I didn't have to be subjected to the same tired, played out, cliche'd bullshit arguments that resolve nada.

All or nothing. Real simple.

I'll give Perry a chance to catch up to everyone else, in the meantime:

If Snoop organizes a group and they want everyone else to call them that, then I'm fine with that. I think we can legitimately question them on why they want to use a term that denotes hatred though. But do you not see how that is vastly different than how the local nine acquired their nickname?

And congratulations to the suburban white male for being content with the current state of race relations in this country and wanting everyone else's issues to just go away.

The Indians' name was chosen because white people, at that time, thought of Native Americans as subhuman savages, "on the warpath all the time, and eager for scalps to dangle at their belts". Surely you can see the difference.

There is simply nothing valid to this statement. If there is a point to be made, make it factually.

That is a quote, taken directly from a local paper in 1915, when they changed the name to Indians. The term "Indians" was also supposed to imply "speed and fight", again take straight from the paper.

The Indians' name was chosen because white people, at that time, thought of Native Americans as subhuman savages, "on the warpath all the time, and eager for scalps to dangle at their belts". Surely you can see the difference.

There is simply nothing valid to this statement. If there is a point to be made, make it factually.

That is a quote, taken directly from a local paper in 1915, when they changed the name to Indians. The term "Indians" was also supposed to imply "speed and fight", again take straight from the paper.

The Indians' name was chosen because white people, at that time, thought of Native Americans as subhuman savages, "on the warpath all the time, and eager for scalps to dangle at their belts". Surely you can see the difference.

There is simply nothing valid to this statement. If there is a point to be made, make it factually.

That is a quote, taken directly from a local paper in 1915, when they changed the name to Indians. The term "Indians" was also supposed to imply "speed and fight", again take straight from the paper.

You know you have provide a link with that. You can't just say in the paper 100 freakin years ago and expect it to be gospel. Especially when there a many articles claiming it was in honor of a retired player (admittedly a disputed account). And the apparent accepted idea is that it was just a play on the Boston Braves.

"Strangers passing in the street, by chances two separate glances meet and I am you and what I see his me."

Funny how Neyer spends his whole time talking about the Indians rather than the Redskins, since that symposium that was the source of the article was about the Redskins! He really hates Cleveland and turning a discussion on the Redskins into the Indians was just his way to try to get a dig in.

I don't think "Indians" is offensive and that the name needs to go. "Redskins" is far more offensive. I can understand how some might say Chief Wahoo is offensive, but still don't want to see it go. Especially not for a weak cursive (who the hell uses cursive anymore) I.

If they ever changed their name to something like Spiders or Rock and Rollers I'd rather stab myself in the eye with toothpick than watch a game.

Good lord, did you people read the same piece that I did? Maybe we are being sent to different links. It wasn't all about the Redskins. It was “Racist Stereotypes and Cultural Appropriation in American Sports”.

motherscratcher wrote:Good lord, did you people read the same piece that I did? Maybe we are being sent to different links. It wasn't all about the Redskins. It was “Racist Stereotypes and Cultural Appropriation in American Sports”.

And now Rob Neyer "hates Cleveland"?

Nowhere in the original article (WaPost) does it mention Cleveland, the Cleveland Indians or Chief Wahoo, or even baseball. Neyer (who I am assuming was not in attendance) used it as an opportunity to take a dig at Cleveland. I am far too busy, at the moment to back-track and research Neyer's pieces, but he has a history of writing anti-Cleveland pieces for the last decade.

Why is the "Fighting Irish" ok if Indians is offensive? Why not write about that? Go troll on ND forums with that. But I assume you feel it is fine cause Irish descendents are white/majorities. If Indians is offensive to you, why support the team, buy tickets, gear, etc.? You are only perpetuating it.

Actually, the thread, like the blog post, was about what would be a good name for the Indians if the name was changed. He pretty much says as much. It's not a "dig" at Cleveland unless you are hypersensitive and on the lookout for any perceived slight so you can go off and get your panties all in a bunch.

And I guess Neyer must hate the city of Atlanta too, because he also made a post for them. The Chiefs aren't a baseball team so I doubt their post is forthcoming. Actually, I think Neyer likes Kansas City so that's why they will avoid his terrible wrath and spewing hatred.

peeker643 wrote:Ahh... so if a group put together by Snoop Dogg ( or Snoop Lion, or whatever it is today) puts together a group of of young (ish), hip (ish) black males with tons of cake and calls his team the the LA Crazy Ass- Filthy Rich Niggaz then we're good? No one will be (or should be) offended?

It's one way or the other. If there's room for a representative percentage to take offense then it has to go. Or you stay with not giving a shit if anyone's offended. I really don't give a shit one way or the other. Believe it or not, when I watch a game with RG3 playing I don't associate it with native Americans being wiped off the face off the country. When I watch Notre Dame play the only drunken Irishman I worry about is me. If I watched Snoop's team play I wouldn't associate that name with any given individual or group of people. And when I watch the Cavs play I'm not immediately considering how Dartanian would feel about the logo and nickname.

I just wish this subject and every dumb ass, reactionary article associated with them would go away forever so I didn't have to be subjected to the same tired, played out, cliche'd bullshit arguments that resolve nada.

All or nothing. Real simple.

I'll give Perry a chance to catch up to everyone else, in the meantime:

If Snoop organizes a group and they want everyone else to call them that, then I'm fine with that. I think we can legitimately question them on why they want to use a term that denotes hatred though. But do you not see how that is vastly different than how the local nine acquired their nickname?

And congratulations to the suburban white male for being content with the current state of race relations in this country and wanting everyone else's issues to just go away.

Not talking about the local nine. Talking about how "Fighting Irish" is different because you say it is.

Well, I am Irish and I'm offended as hell. And so are 15% of my Irish-American club buddies and we want that shit changed. Now what?

If Snoop organizes a group and they want everyone else to call them that, then I'm fine with that.

You are. Many won't be.

It's not the issue that I'd like to go away, ignore and die quietly. It's the people who ignorantly talk about it and write about it that I'd like to go away. Especially those who are hypocritical in what they say, what they write and how they live. And those are many.

I'm pretty comfortable that this white suburban male has an open mind and practices pretty much what he preaches and has taught his kids the same.

And I'll tell you this: If everyone everywhere, and including on this board, was as racially tolerant and open minded AS THEY CLAIM TO BE, and if everyone in the country and on these boards who claims to see people for their actions and their character as opposed to their skin color, race wouldn't be an issue in this country. It wouldn't be an issue on the boards. It wouldn't be the messy little pile you tried to avoid or had to step lightly around.

Again, tired of hearing the arguments about the Chief or the Irish or the Redskins. A disgustingly large percentage of the people who make the argument don't live up to their public positions or harbor their own biases and prejudices about someone else.

peeker643 wrote:Not talking about the local nine. Talking about how "Fighting Irish" is different because you say it is.

Well, I am Irish and I'm offended as hell. And so are 15% of my Irish-American club buddies and we want that shit changed. Now what?

If Snoop organizes a group and they want everyone else to call them that, then I'm fine with that.

You are. Many won't be.

It's not the issue that I'd like to go away, ignore and die quietly. It's the people who ignorantly talk about it and write about it that I'd like to go away. Especially those who are hypocritical in what they say, what they write and how they live. And those are many.

I'm pretty comfortable that this white suburban male has an open mind and practices pretty much what he preaches and has taught his kids the same.

And I'll tell you this: If everyone everywhere, and including on this board, was as racially tolerant and open minded AS THEY CLAIM TO BE, and if everyone in the country and on these boards who claims to see people for their actions and their character as opposed to their skin color, race wouldn't be an issue in this country. It wouldn't be an issue on the boards. It wouldn't be the messy little pile you tried to avoid or had to step lightly around.

Again, tired of hearing the arguments about the Chief or the Irish or the Redskins. A disgustingly large percentage of the people who make the argument don't live up to their public positions or harbor their own biases and prejudices about someone else.

Hypocrisy rules.

The Fighting Irish isn't different just because I say it is. It actually is, and I explained already. You just don't like what I had to say, so you come up with some ridiculous example to attack instead.

If you are legitimately offended, then say so, and actually do something about it. But you don't get to pretend that there aren't deeper issues at hand than just somebody being offended by the team name and logo.

I've never tried to change your, or anyone else's position on this issue. I get why people want to keep the name and the logo. All I've said is that they were pretty clearly chosen with a racist sentiment, and why wouldn't we want to disassociate with that?

And you're right, people are always carrying prejudices. It's hard to avoid. But, I don't see how that should prevent us from at least trying to avoid them. Perfect and better aren't at odds.

If someone willingly makes an ignorant or inconsiderate comment about me in the woods, and I heard it but didn't really give a crap, did it actually matter?

Half my family is Czech and half is Slovak. In the '70s, Steve Martin and Dan Ackroyd did a "Wild and Crazy Guy" bit. They were rubes in the big city, and they made it clear they were from Czechoslovakia. It was fun, so they did it again and again. If I don't take myself seriously enough to take it personally, should anyone else?

It hurts Clevelanders' feelings that people make fun of their city. Should something be done?

Is this such a huge issue because schools drill it into kids these days?

If someone willingly makes an ignorant or inconsiderate comment about me in the woods, and I heard it but didn't really give a crap, did it actually matter?

Half my family is Czech and half is Slovak. In the '70s, Steve Martin and Dan Ackroyd did a "Wild and Crazy Guy" bit. They were rubes in the big city, and they made it clear they were from Czechoslovakia. It was fun, so they did it again and again. If I don't take myself seriously enough to take it personally, should anyone else?

It hurts Clevelanders' feelings that people make fun of their city. Should something be done?

Is this such a huge issue because schools drill it into kids these days?

I'm getting as sick of discussing this as Peeker is, but the "Wild and Crazy guys" bit isn't comparable to how the Indians got their name or Chief Wahoo. And if that's the best you can come up with to demonstrate that your race has been treated unfairly, you aren't really qualified to tell people what can and can't offend them. There is a huge difference between Sambo and a joke that is clearly not representative of Czechs. Where does the original naming of the Indians and Chief Wahoo fall on the spectrum between those two?

And again, congratulations to the suburban white guy on not being offended.